A random collection of thoughts, photos, and reviews.

Uncategorized

Why I Decided To Read It: Sometimes, we here at The Play’s the Thing (i.e. me) wants to read important works of drama that have an effect on the theatrical world. Sometimes, it’s just good to read something light and fun. I like Lauren Gunderson. I like Pride and Prejudice. I’ve played Mary Bennet in a community theatre production of Pride and Prejudice and she’s my favorite Bennet sister. I like Christmas. What else is there to say? Other than, yes, I know it’s close to Halloween, but I wanted to read this, dammit.

Summary: Set two years after Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, this play follows Mary Bennet’s own personal journey. After being invited to her sister Elizabeth’s home, the large Pemberley estate, for Christmas, Mary doesn’t expect much. Being the bookish middle sister, she and her family have resigned Mary to a life of spinisterhood. Enter Arthur deBourgh- Mr. Darcy’s smart, awkward, and single cousin. The two share an immediate connection, but will unforeseen circumstances get in the way of their happiness?

Thoughts and Analysis: First of all, I appreciate the authors’ note that they encourage diverse casting. That is awesome.

This was a cute play. It goes extremely quick; I read it in under two hours. Like any Lauren Gunderson play, it’s very funny, which is important in a Jane Austen pastiche. I feel it was a fair interpretation of where the characters of Pride and Prejudice would be in two years. It was also contained consistent characterization from the original novel. I did wonder where Georgiana Darcy was, though. I liked they acknowledged the lack of Kitty and made a joke out of it.

The only original character was Arthur deBourgh, who is Darcy’s cousin. Due to Lady Catherine’s death, he has inherited Rosings. He’s a much more awkward Mr. Darcy, but he’s still likeable. Like Mary, he’s an intellectual and they make a good match.

What I really appreciated was the characterization of the sisters. I feel like in many Pride and Prejudice sequels and adaptations, most authors tend to ignore the Bennet sisters’ relationships beyond Jane and Lizzy and sometimes Lydia. Or at the very least, there often isn’t the full shade of emotions that sisterhood entails between all the sisters. There is a lot of annoyance, but not a lot of caring. This play was different. I really got the sense of sisterhood between the Bennet girls because there was a balance of emotions. There was snippy-ness, but there was also concern and meddling.

Favorite Character: Please, it was Mary. She’s funny. She’s nerdy. She strives to know her place in the world. I totally related to her.

Should You Read This?: If you like Jane Austen, it’s worth a shot.

Final Thoughts: Miss Bennet is a cute, fun romantic comedy that makes a light read.

Why I Decided To Read It: One of the things I have been doing with this project is read plays that are not by white cis-hetero men. Because so much of canonical theatre (and most forms of art and media) is done by these men, I think it’s important to find other people’s point of view. As a society, we need to make an effort to understand everyone’s point of view for a multitude of reasons. I remembered David Henry Hwang mentioned when discussing modern theatre in one of my college classes, but we ultimately didn’t read one of his plays. However, I put him and specifically M. Butterfly in the back of my mind because I enjoy modern retellings or deconstructions of popular myths or pieces of media. I eventually fond the play at my local Half-Price Books (incidentally the same trip I found and bought Intimate Apparel) and decided to get it.

Summary: Stuckin a jail cell in 1988, French diplomat to China Rene Gallimard begins reliving his actions leading him to his current situation. Beginning in 1960, Gallimard vividly retells the tale of meeting his “ideal woman”, Chinese opera singer Song Liling. Gallimard considers Song his own Madame Butterfly- beautiful, submissive, and conservative yet sexual. They embark on a twenty year relationship where Gallimard passes his lover government secrets. But Song is not all that “she” seems. Song is actually a male Chinese spy feeding Gallimard’s sexist and racist desires to get information. So caught up in his fantasy, Gallimard has problems acknowledging the truth went it comes out. This psychologically deep play discusses what is love and examines the power fantasies that is so ingrained in Western culture.

Thoughts and Analysis: There is just so much to unpack for this play. There is of course the discussions of sexism and racism that is the main crux of the play. There is also its place in the theatrical canon, its relevancy today, and how companies choose to market the play. I would personally loved to have the opportunity to talk about this in a class because there is a lot to discuss.

It’s kind of amazing- in the horrifying way- how relevant this play still is today. Until I looked it up, I had no idea the play is being revived on Broadway right now, which seems fitting. It was written 30 years ago, but it still seems fresh because the racism and sexism still applies. Hwang masterfully dismantles how problematic many people in the West view Asian women: that they’re submissive and modest but sexy. It’s very much a power fantasy. You still see it today with white guys fetishizing Asian women through anime and other forms of media. It’s sexist because it’s denying women’s equality to men and it’s racist because it enforces ugly stereotypes that Asian people are weak and easy to dominate. This play calls that behavior out by deconstructing the opera Madame Butterfly. Gallimard is obsessed with the opera and Song uses that information to inform his actions. At times, I found myself rolling my eyes at some of what Gallimard was saying, but I think that’s the point.

I think M. Butterfly deserves a place in the larger theatrical canon for a number of reasons. First of all, it’s just a brilliant play. It’s well-written and thought out. As it is written by an Asian-American, it’s not a point-of-view we often get in theatre. It also marks a point in a change in American theatre. At this point in the 80s and into the 90s, we see a definite shift from realism or the avant-garde to a blend of the two. There’s a bit of realism, Brechtian techniques, and a sort of magical realism in here. This trend continues into the modern day.

There’s so much more worth discussing in this play, but I don’t have the space here to cover it all. What I do want to discuss is the marketing some companies do in promoting this play. I probably wouldn’t discuss this if I hadn’t watched some of the Broadway commercials. They don’t advertise who is playing Song and they emphasize the love story aspect of the play. I watched the trailer for the film version and it’s similar. I think it’s fascinating that the advertise on the stereotype and then subvert it in the play itself. I don’t know if it’s good or bad, but it’s interesting. I guess it depends if it’s intentional.

Favorite Character: Song is such an interesting character because there are so many motivations that we don’t know. They have to be decided by the actor and director.

Should You Read This?: Yes. Yes. Yes. It’s fascinating and covers issues that do not get enough discussion.

Final Thoughts: M. Butterfly is a modern classic that is worth the read.

Why I Decided To Read It: I have been wanting to read this play for a while. In one of my college classes, we had to pitch plays to read as a class and one of my classmates suggested this play. I thought we should have read it then to have some diversity in our class’s canon. Besides, I knew Lynn Nottage was a fairly popular name in modern theatre and this is probably her most well-known piece. And I like historical fashion. But it lost. This play got put on my Amazon Wish List with about seventy other plays I have yet to put the money down to order. However, I recently found it at my local Half Price Books and decided it was fate, so I bought it.

Summary: It’s 1905 and Esther Mills is just going through the daily motions. As an African-American seamstress, Esther spends her days sewing corsets and other lingerie for clients of all backgrounds in New York City while dreaming of owning her own beauty parlor. The only interactions she has are with her fellow boarding house dwellers, her clients, and the man that sells her fabric (with who she shares an undeniable attraction). When letters start arriving from a Panama Canal builder, Esther gets her first real shot of a romantic relationship, but things are not all that they seem. Will she find love? Or will she find herself? Or both?

Thoughts and Analysis: I enjoyed this play. (Surprise, I liked a feminist piece of media) It reminded me a bit of the plays In the Next Room and The Heiress and the novel Plum Bun by Jessie Redmon Fauset for different reasons. It shares discussion of women’s issues in the turn of the century with In the Next Room, struggles with spinsterhood and suitors with The Heiress, and being an African-American woman living in NYC with Plum Bun. These pieces of media themselves are not connected in any way with exception that they are written by (or in the case of The Heiress, co-written) women and all heavily feature the theme of loneliness. Intimate Apparel also heavily discusses loneliness.

The title of the play is very accurate. Not only is the main seamstress of women’s undergarments, but each character has a different way they handle intimacy. Everyone has his or own emotional apparel. Thanks to early 20th Century society being what it is, certain characters cannot be as close as what they want to be. If they act on that desire, there is a definite cost. It is a very honest view of the struggles in 20th Century America that we as an audience do not usually get to see- mainly because we see it in a white heterosexual male lens. It discusses interracial relationships, women’s sexuality, and immigration.

A facet I really enjoyed about this play is the use of language. Each character has her or his distinct voice thanks to his or her class, race, and place of origin. Esther, an African-American woman originally from the South, sounds different from Mr. Marks, an Orthodox Jewish immigrant. There is even a difference between how George’s letters sound and how George actually speaks once he moves to New York (and for good reason).

I think my main complaint is that act two goes a little fast. Maybe it seems like that because act one contains a fair amount of exposition awhile act two is mainly moving plot. Overall, it isn’t too much of a problem.

Favorite Character: While all the characters are great, Esther is probably my favorite. She’s shy, but she’s stubborn. She wants independence but also wants romance. She’s extremely multidimensional and she’s great.

Should You Read This?: If you have an interest in turn-of-the-20th Century history, feminism, historical fashion, discussion of race in America, or romance, you should read this.

Final Thoughts: I think this should be added to the theatrical canon. It is a great example of modern theatre.

Also, if anyone has any suggestions for plays, especially comedic plays, I would love to hear them.

Why I Decided To Read It: I read Lauren Gunderson’s play I and You a few years ago and I loved it. I’ve been trying to read more of her works, but they haven’t always been easily available. I was able to get a hand on this play- which is probably her most known work after I and You– so I decided to get it.

Summary: It’s the early 1900s and Henrietta Leavitt is bored of her small Wisconsin town. When she is given the opportunity to work at Harvard’s astronomy department, she jumps at the chance. But everything is not as she imagined. Instead of looking through telescopes and exploring her own ideas, Henrietta is shoved into a small office with other women called “computers” and told to chart the stars. Despite being left to do the hard work for men who don’t respect them, these women are resilient in the face of professional difficulties. Personal life is much harder. Being a woman in the turn of the century isn’t easy. Either career or love has to come first. As her obsession with her work grows, Henrietta contact with her family lessens until tragedy strikes. Based on a true story, Silent Sky is all about one woman finding her place- and ours- in the universe.

Thoughts and Analysis: So this might have become one of my favorite plays. First of all, I just love Lauren Gunderson’s style. It is very youthful and humorous. I feel like it meshes with my own style. It kind of has everything I love: good roles for women, history, romance, humor, and feminism.

Admittedly, I am not a science person. I took astronomy in college and I did fine. Although I didn’t entirely understand some of the concepts explained in the show, it didn’t lower my enjoyment of the play. If the science explained wasn’t correct, I have no idea.

What I really appreciate about this play is the feminist aspects of the play. First of all, it is very pro-women in science. Women have done a lot of the hard work with very little credit. This play is telling their story. Because this play is set during the early 20th century, things like the right to vote and career women are also discussed. Henrietta struggles between having a professional life or having a home life. Will also discusses her personal struggles being an immigrant abandoned by her husband. The play is also great in terms of casting. It’s rare to see a play where most of the characters are arguably female character roles. They’re all multi-dimensional too! As someone who usually plays female character roles when she acts, it’s amazing.

The major themes of this play are passion and finding your place in the universe. Henrietta, Annie, and Will are so passionate about what they do. It’s their passion for astronomy that leads them to do great work. Being women and astronomers, they talk about how that affects their places not only in society but also in the universe. There is the micro: Who are we in this department, in society, in history? There is also the macro: Where are we in the universe? Are we the only universe? With these two questions together, there’s also the question of: Do we matter? Why? It creates an interesting conversation.

Favorite Character: It’s a hard choice between the three “computers”: Henrietta, Annie, and Will. I love all three of them. I’d love to play all three of them. They all bring something different to the table. Will is just a hoot. Henrietta is passionate. Annie is the no-nonsense but will fight for you. More character roles for women! More complex roles for women!

Should You Read This?: Yes, especially if you like feminism, science, and women in science. Or if you don’t like these things, you should read it anyway and learn something.

Final Thoughts: Silent Sky is a heartwarming, funny play with great characters about underappreciated women in science. It is totally worth a read.

Why I Decided To Read It: I first read Frankenstein in high school. We covered the gist of Mary Shelley: father was William Godwin, mother was Mary Wollstonecraft, ran off with Percy Shelley, Frankenstein was started on a trip to Geneva when Lord Byron suggested they all come up with a scary story. I found the book interesting, but didn’t necessarily appreciate some of the deeper philosophical issues until later in my academic career. I discovered this play while randomly searching Amazon. I wanted to learn more about Mary Shelley, so I decided to get it. Also the playwright is a woman and I’m all for more women playwrights.

Summary: Before she was author of Frankenstein, Mary Shelley was Mary Godwin- daughter of political philosophers Mary Wollstonecraft and William Godwin. Raised on her father’s radical ideas with her half-sister Fanny and step-sister Jane, Mary Godwin is an unconventional teenager for her time. She’s educated, opinionated, and fearless. After coming home from a stay in Scotland, she meets one of her father’s proteges, Percy Shelley. Sparks immediately fly. As Mary and Shelley rush into a wild romance, Mary’s relationship with her father becomes strained and society begins to turn on the Godwin family. As her relationships crumble, Mary begins to question the beliefs she was raised on and begins to write.

Thoughts and Analysis: First things first- and I guess that this is somewhat a spoiler- this play doesn’t show the scary story bet in Geneva that starts Frankenstein. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. While we don’t see the very specific event itself, we do see a lot of what inspired Frankenstein. Mary Shelley’s book is very much about parenting. While the Monster does horrible things, Victor Frankenstein’s failed “parenting” is partially at fault. Mary Shelley has a very difficult relationship with her father in this play. Part of their problems stem from their different philosophical views. William Godwin believes that humanity can be perfected, but Mary sees the danger of trying too hard to perfect humanity. I feel it is very helpful to already understand the story behind Frankenstein and the philosophical views behind the characters. It isn’t 100% necessary, but it helps. The views of the Enlightenment period is kind of complicated.

Speaking of complicated, the Godwin family situation is extremely complicated. I had no idea prior to this play. Mary Godwin has two sisters, but they aren’t fully related by blood. Jane is her step-sister and Fanny is her half-sister. It took a few minutes to figure out who was a blood relation to who. Maybe if I saw it I might be able to figure it out faster. Keeping track of the timeline could also be a little complicated. There wasn’t many “six months later” in the stage directions except in a few cases, so I had to follow the script itself closely. The play doesn’t cover her entire life. It’s essentially from when she meets Percy Shelley to when she finally marries him.

A part of the play I really like was Mary’s dreams. They were small pieces, but I could see some of the origins of Frankenstein in them. They also give great indications of Mary’s mental state. She clearly has issues with depression and regret.

Favorite Character: I don’t know if it’s because she’s similar to characters I’ve played before, but I really liked Fanny. She’s the only sensible person in the entire family.

Should You Read This?: If you’ve read Frankenstein and want to know more about the author’s past, it’s an interesting read. I don’t think it’s for everybody, but people interested in English literature, women in literature, and philosophy should like it. It would be a great pairing for theaters doing a play version of Frankenstein.

Final Thoughts: Although some parts could be complicated, I liked it overall and found Mary Shelley’s early life fascinating.

This past Friday, I was fortunate enough to see Hamilton in Chicago. Now, I’ve had a long history with Hamilton. I first became aware of Lin-Manuel Miranda the first time I watched the Tony Awards in 2008. In the Heights seemed interesting, but I didn’t really seek it out for a few years. I was still relatively new to theatre, so I stuck with the mega musicals that a lot of teenagers are first introduced to. Eventually, I crossed paths with In the Heights again but this time it sucked me in. Not only was Lin and the cast clearly talented, but it was unlike anything I had experienced before. I rarely heard rapping in musical theatre (and it still isn’t too common) and it had an array of Latin music that gave the show a special energy. It also felt like a very personal piece. When I finally saw it in one of my final years of high school, it became one of my favorite musicals. During this time, I wanted to know what Lin was working on, so I would periodically check Wikipedia. One of the things that would always be listed was something called The Hamilton Mixtape. It was first just a concept album, but it eventually switched to an actual stage show. Throughout the years, there would be an update or two, but I always wondered when- or if- it would actually happen.

Let’s fast-forward to my junior year of college. For my spring semester, I was going to NYC as part of the New York Arts Program, which is an internship program for Midwest college students. I heard news that Hamilton was finally happening Off-Broadway. It was impossible to get tickets. We think it’s difficult to get tickets now, but the Public Theater run was so much worse. Granted, it was probably cheaper, but it was harder to get. It’s a smaller theater and it was a limited run. I didn’t get to see it then.

I would take any taste of Hamilton I got- except bootlegs. When they first posted the advertising clips on YouTube, I would watch those a lot, but they got taken down. The NPR live-stream of the album was a godsend for me. I remembering listening to the entire album the first day it was posted while in my dorm TV lounge and sobbing by the end of it. I was obsessed.

I became really excited when the Chicago production was first announced. Being from Indiana, Chicago isn’t too far of a drive. The day the tickets were released, my mom and I were in the Disney Store on our phones trying to get tickets. We decided to go a bit further out because earlier shows were taking forever to load. It wouldn’t be for months, but I finally got my tickets. Between the time I bought tickets and saw it, I calmed down a bit. I was still excited, but I wasn’t chatting everyone’s ear off about it.

It’s somewhat strange going into a show with high expectations. It isn’t something that happens often for me. I usually try to go into entertainment hoping the show will be good, but not setting the bar too high. Some of my favorite theatre experiences have happened when I went into them with zero expectations.

Fortunately, Hamilton lived up to the hype.

The cast was extremely talented. There was even some pleasant surprises. I opened my Playbill to discover that Wallace Smith was playing Hercules Mulligan/James Madison. He played Judas in the 2011-12 revival of Godspell and I listened to that album a lot in my senior year of high school- especially his version of “On the Willows”. He had probably the hardest dual roles and he did the change very well. Chris De’Sean Lee was hilarious as Marquis de Lafayette and Thomas Jefferson. I loved Karen Olivo’s Angelica Schuyler as I knew I would. Miguel Cervants was a great Hamilton and also has an amazing voice. Aubin Wise- the Schulyer sisters standby- went on as Peggy and Maria Reynolds and was great. Jonathan Kirkland was a powerful George Washington. Every time Alexander Gemignani went on as King George, the audience was dying of laughter. I was pleasantly surprised by Wayne Brady as Aaron Burr (even if I was slightly saddened that I wouldn’t be seeing Joshua Henry perform). Casting celebrities is always iffy, but he did a great job. His performance of “The Room Where it Happens” was especially good. The rest of the cast, including Ari Afsar and José Ramos, were great.

Seeing the show, it is easy to see how most of the technical aspects won Tony Awards. The show relies heavily on visual storytelling, both with the acting and tech. I really have to give director Thomas Kail credit for everything being so cohesive. No technical part glaringly stood out. My only minor complaint is that I wish the set itself was a bit more visually versatile. I loved the two turntables, but the surrounding brick and wood was somewhat monotonous to look at. However, it did make the colorful costumes and lights stand out more (which were both gorgeous, by the way). I am deeply saddened that the Tony Awards no longer has a sound design category because Nevin Steinberg’s sound design was masterful.

Hamilton is a masterclass in stage pictures and movement. I cannot describe how brilliant Thomas Kail and choreographer Andy Blankenbuehler are. The rewind section of “Satisfied” is so clever and well paced it blows my mind. Turn tables can be gimmicky, but they use it to their full advantage. I have two moments that continue to stand out in my mind. The first one is the song “Hurricane”. It was never my favorite song on the album. However, it was one of my favorite moments in the show. At one point, the lights, sound, music, and movement come together to make it look like a freeze frame photo from the middle of a hurricane. It was gorgeous. Before I get to the second moment, I have to talk about the music and plot.

I think I’ve made my feelings about Lin-Manuel Miranda clear about now. The man is a genius and the songs are great. I could go into a deep lyrical analysis, but I feel everyone has done that and it would make this post twice as long. If you are interested in lyrical analysis, I would highly encourage you to read the annotations on Genius.com because they give more analysis than I could hope to cover. I do want to compliment his use of themes. Listen to the different melodies and notice how they are reused. It’s very complex. I’m sure there’s a thesis in analyzing the musical structure of this show. My mom commented that she preferred the first act over the second because it has much more action and the second act is more about Hamilton’s personal life. It is a fair point. The second act mainly discusses Hamilton’s personal mistakes while the politics take a secondary role. It is important to note that there was a lot less physical fighting and more philosophical arguments during that time period, so the shift kind of had to happen. While I’m sure someone would be delighted about a rap discussing Hamilton’s financial structure, it’s not the most commercially viable idea.

I want to acknowledge this musical is almost entirely sung (or rapped) through. The only exceptions are a few lines between “Dear Theodosia” and “Non-Stop” concerning a letter- but there is still score underneath- and a moment I will discuss later. This is important for a few reasons. First of all, like Lin-Manuel Miranda mentioned in some interview, it’s the only way to fit a lot of Hamilton’s words in a small amount of time and make them digestible. Most sung-through musicals follow this idea: music can fit in a lot of information and emotion in a limited amount of time. There is a reason the musical Les Mis is probably the most faithful adaptation of a thousand-page book. Secondly, it keeps the energy going. The third reason is the dramatic impact of my other stand-out moment: Hamilton and Burr’s duel.

If you listened to the album, you already know this but once Burr fires his gun, for the first time in the show the music stops. It’s jarring. When I say that, I don’t mean it in a bad way. It’s effective drama. I got a little bit of this on the album, but I didn’t get the full effect of it until I saw it live. Hamilton wonders during “My Shot” if dying is “like a beat without a melody”. In the moment before he gets shot by Burr, he raps about his life in several different reprises, but there is no music underneath underneath him; it’s just howling wind. His hypothesis is proved true. So much of Hamilton’s life is making the most of his time; he is outpacing death and it finally catches up with him. It was also visually stunning by using a similar effect in “Satisfied”. They used the turn tables to recreate different moments in the show, so not only were you getting musical reprises, you were also getting visual reprises. Overall, it’s a stunning moment.

The final thing I want to discuss is the political climate I saw the show in. Between the time I bought tickets and the time I saw the show, a presidential election happened. Hell, when I first heard the music, the primaries had yet to happen. We as a country has seen a lot in politics during the past few years. New points in the show keep becoming more and more relevant. I actually saw Hamilton on Holocaust Remembrance Day and the day the Muslim ban was signed (Yes, I know it’s not “officially” a Muslim ban, but we all know that is its purpose.). There were a few lines that stood out to me and the rest audience. Obviously “Immigrants: We get the job done” got a huge applause. A week after the Women’s Marches, “And when I meet Thomas Jefferson, I’m ‘a compel him to include women in the sequel” also got a big cheer. However, the line that stood out the most to me in the political climate was “Winning was easy, young man. Governing’s harder.” I know that seems like a really obvious thing, but it’s something that needs to be said. Winning is so much different than governing. In order to win, you can say terrible things and bully others. You can’t do that as an actual leader. At least, if you want to be a good leader. You are not just making decisions for the people who voted for you, you are making decisions for everyone. Governing involves empathy, diplomacy, and compromise. I think it’s safe to say that in the first few weeks, the new administration is failing on that front. Contextually, I know it’s not entirely the same, but the line did spark a connection in me.

This show is also important for this current political time because it acknowledges that the founding fathers were actual people with flaws and that disagreed. People tend to refer to the founders of this country as they were some perfect monolith. It’s the “Founding Fathers”, not a collection of individuals who came from different backgrounds with differing opinions. It’s important to remember that because- let’s be real- the Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Burr, and Washington would all have different opinions about what’s going on now. They weren’t perfect human beings and we should recognize their flaws. This show also shows the people that history forgot were important to shaping history. We remember Alexander Hamilton and George Washington thanks to women like Eliza Hamilton. It gives a voice to people we forget about.

Casting is important too. The cast is extremely diverse. With all the protests and political action currently happening organized by people of every background, it’s powerful to see the people who formed our government reflect that. It also just reflects America as it is today. Historically, most forms of media lack diversity. It’s starting to change now with shows like Hamilton, but we still have a ways to go. Representation is important because it creates empathy between everyone by normalizing diversity. Hopefully, the show inspires more people who aren’t white, cishet men to run for office or at least continue to be politically active and stand together.

Obviously, this show has a lot of facets to discuss. It will be interesting to see how this show influences the national conversation, politically and theatrically, in the coming years. If you are fortunate enough to have the chance to see Hamilton, I would highly encourage you to take it. Do not throw away your shot.

Welcome to my first edition of The Play’s The Thing. It’s where I’m going to give my thoughts on plays that I’ve read or seen. So I figured why not start with Anne Boleyn by Howard Brenton?

Anne Boleyn by Howard Brenton

(image from Amazon.com)

Why I Decided To Read It: I honestly don’t remember when or how I discovered my love of Tudor history- specifically Anne Boleyn and Queen Elizabeth I- but I have been enamored of it for a while. The discovery might have occurred while reading a young reader’s historical fiction in elementary or middle school or during a history class, but I just don’t remember. Regardless of how it started, my love of the time period has been fairly consistent throughout my life. I took a Tudor and Stewart England class my senior year of college and my final paper was on Anne Boleyn. A few years ago, Susan Bordo, author of The Creation of Anne Boleyn, did a talk at my college. I was there with bells on and it was extremely fascinating. Most of the talk and the book itself is about how different cultures and eras view Anne Boleyn. Unfortunately, I did not have the money to buy the book at the time, but I recently bought it on Audible. (I highly recommend it, by the way.) Because the book deals with different media representations of Anne Boleyn, this play was discussed. I had never heard about it before, so I decided to read it.

Summary: After moving to England to ascend its throne in 1603, King James I is shown a trunk owned by the recently deceased Queen Elizabeth. What he finds in it sheds light on the personality and religious ideals of Anne Boleyn- the late queen’s mother. Suddenly, the court of Henry VIII comes alive to tell the story of how an intelligent and persistent young woman, a love affair with a king, and two dangerous small books changed religion in England. Facing a religious crisis of his own, James I becomes entranced by Anne’s dark, dramatic story and hopes to find a less deadly ending for himself.

Thoughts and Analysis: There are a few things I wish to discuss about this play. First of all, it is a very interesting angle to look at Anne Boleyn. Media rarely looks at her through a religious lens. Most media gets the whole “Henry VIII left the Catholic church to marry Anne Boleyn”, but most don’t look at her personal religious views in detail. The only one that I can think of at the moment is Wolf Hall, but that focuses more on Cromwell. Howard Brenton really emphasizes how radical her views were for the time, which is important to understand her. This was a time were having an English-translated Bible like Anne had was a huge deal and could possibly lead to torture or death. She is willing to put herself in danger for her religion.

Because the play mainly focuses on how religion shaped the court, it isn’t a very large cast, which is refreshing. I saw the first part of Wolf Hall on Broadway and it was initially confusing to keep track of all the characters although I have a basic understanding of the time period. I had much less of a problem in this play. Also, if I hadn’t known that it was written for the Globe, I wouldn’t be surprised if you told me it was. It shares similarities with Shakespeare’s histories in terms of structure and staging. In addition to the relatively small cast, the necessary set pieces are pretty slim. Instead of covering the monarch’s entire life, it focuses on one central theme.

Another interesting way this discusses religion is framing Anne’s story through James I discovering her Bible. James interacting with her story adds the extra dimension in showing that the religion issues in England haven’t been solved almost 70 years after her death (and ultimately wouldn’t be for a long time after James’s death). James has to struggle with the Anglican church and the Puritans to find a sort of common ground to create religious unity in England. They discover their problems stem from how they interpret the Bible. Their disagreements ultimately leads to the creation of the King James Bible, which still doesn’t solve all problems. By including James’s story, the major theme of the play becomes how people use their religion to justify their own actions.

Speaking of James I, at first he can come across a little much, but when you look at the historical record (he loved his favorites, was smart but pretty vulgar in his language, literally wrote the book on witches, would mark himself and his fellow hunters with deer’s blood after killing a deer, and so much more) this interpretation is fair.

I only have a few critiques on the play. First of all, I wish we saw at least one more scene of Anne Boleyn’s changing relationship with Thomas Cromwell. Their ending animosity comes a little fast. My other critique is that the introduction of the Anglicans and Puritans could have come a little sooner or their scenes could have been more spread out. They come in fairly late and it takes a long detour away from Henry VIII’s court. However, I can see the argument of why they come in when they do.

If I’m being honest here, I actually read this play twice: once before the US presidential election was over and again after it was over. I doubt that this was intentional, but Brenton has written something very prevalent to US politics. Like mentioned previously, this play hinges on how we as people use our religion to justify our actions, especially how we “prove” are points are correct by interpreting scripture or doctrine in a way that benefits us. We see this a lot in US politics today, especially with how many conservatives use their religion to support their views that many things are “wrong” (gay marriage, abortion, transgender people using the bathroom of the gender of which they identify, etc.). Scenes like when the Anglicans and the Puritans debate how scripture should be translated stood out in my mind because of this. The other way this play reminds me of US politics, especially of the 2016 Presidential election, is how Anne Boleyn- and by extension all women in power- is treated by the other characters. Because Anne Boleyn is a woman trying to give her input on political issues, she is treated with disdain and mistrust by the patriarchal society that surrounds her. Late in the play, Cromwell tells Jane Seymour- Henry VIII’s new mistress and his eventual third wife- not discuss politics with the king; she is just to be a pretty body that will hopefully give him a son. I couldn’t help but think of how Hillary Clinton and other women in politics are treated in this day and age. There are people out in the country that don’t like Hillary because she wants to be in politics; they don’t think it is a woman’s sphere. Even though this play is a fictional account, many historians believe that Anne Boleyn trying to be an active participant in her country’s politics is what led to her downfall. It deeply saddens me that this is still an issue 500 years later.

Favorite Character: While there are many great characters in this play- including how surprisingly hilarious Robert Cecil is- the true star is the title character. Anne Boleyn is witty, smart, seductive, and stubborn. She’s also very religious and has very specific opinions about her religion. She’s flawed, but that’s what great about her and makes her interesting. Theatre needs more female characters like this Anne Boleyn.

Should You Read This?: Yes! This play feels pretty prevalent for America right now, especially how we use religion to defend our actions and how we treat women in power. This play is also interesting to read if you have any interest in the Tudor/Stewart time periods, women in power, and religion.

Final Thoughts: While this play has some flaws, it is overall an interesting and different look into the life and death of Anne Boleyn.